Hi David, My mistake, maybe I misinterpreted your argument. I will address your comments below and request some clarification of what you mean.
On 2/22/12, David Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark, >> Mark >> Besides, can we not invent something that is real? I am afraid that > Wilbur >> has followed the same wrong turn that you have. Perhaps he is > not real >> either. > > Quality is Quality, it is not an analogy for anything. Only >> the > concept is an analogy. Please, get real. > > > Dave > This is not my argument. It's the start of PIRSIG'S argument as supported > and defended by many of others here over the years. I started years ago as > an aficionado of Pirsig's work but over time, as I better understood > philosophy in general, his philosophical arguments, and other peoples > interpretation of his work my opinion has flipped 180. I do not believe mine have since they have not changed for 30 years. I do believe that Lila added more confusion that clarification, however. My opinion, of course. > > So when you ask, " When you step on a thorn, do > you consider that to be > real?" Absolutely. But according to Pirsig's quote the "thorn" is not a > "given" part of our environment, it is an analogue and invention created by > continuing stimulus of quality. Look at this exchange with dmb which I > started in part by posting this: > > [Quality is the continuing stimulus which our environment puts upon us to > create the world in which we live. All of it. Every last bit of it.] ZaMM > 146 It is my turn to claim that you have misinterpreted this quote from ZAMM. My point was there is no way to separate this analogue and invention from the "given" part of our environment. It is part of the given, since we cannot separate ourselves from it. If one gets lost in the intellectual paradigms, it can give the impression that somehow we are separate. However, Zen teachings will demonstrate that we are not. This is the Z in ZAMM. To claim we are separate from our environment is not in keeping with the message that ZAMM provides. It's intent is to reunite us with the environment which philosophy seems to ignore. Read the last bit of ZAMM where he describes his feelings when walking around and noticing how people are no longer in tune with Quality. Think what the word "art" means (which should be capitalized in your acronym). If you read Zen and the Art of Archery perhaps you will get a better idea than I can deliver you. ZAMM was modeled after such a presentation. Perhaps you are making Pirsig's message much more complicated than it is. This is of course what metaphysics tends to do since logic only creates more logic. Soon the logic dominates what it was meant for to begin with. We arrive at the notion that somehow we are separate from given reality. Which is impossible. Reality is reality, there are not two parts to it. The separation of sq and DQ is a rhetorical device to bring out meaning, not to separate the two for ever. It is not to insist that our reality is different from another reality. This is why Quality is unifying. It should not be used destructively, which in my humble opinion, it seems is where you are going. But I am sure I have misinterpreted this as well, for I do not think that is your intention. > > Dave T said to dmb: > If for argument purposes let's say the Quality described here is the Quality > that gets carried over to start Lila. Look at the two sections I put in > brackets. It seems to me that the first quote falls to the myth of the > given. The environment being the "given." ... > > dmb says: > In the preceding paragraph Pirsig explains that "he used this example > because his chief questioners seemed to see things in terms of > stimulus-response behavior theory". He says this sort of explanation was > "easiest intellectual analog of pure Quality that people in our environment > can understand". Also, despite the fact that he's explaining this in terms a > behaviorist can understand, the substance of his claim strikes a direct hit > against the myth of the given. Think about it. If every last bit of reality > is an invented analog, then everything is constructed and nothing is given. Mark: Yes, I agree with dmb, if I am interpreting correctly what he is writing. Reality is not invented, it is realized in a manner which we humans find useful. We are simply interpreters of the given. If somebody interprets Spanish into English, this does not mean that the English is not something similar to the Spanish. It does not somehow make the English unreal. Our interpretation as presented through sq is as direct as the DQ which is being interpreted. To say that such analogue is somehow separate from the given is not correct. Our ability to think is very real, as real as the hardness of steel. We cannot say that we are "imagining" steel to be hard, or we once again get lost in the distractions of logic. > >>Mark >> If you can show me some way, using clever rhetoric, that our thinking > is >> somehow not a real process, then I will consider your view that any > analogy is >> not real. For an analogy is something that we create from > real things. There >> is nowhere in that process where it becomes > unreal. Studies have shown that >> thoughts can be stimulated by placing > electrodes in the brain during brain >> surgery. Here we have the direct > stimulation of thought. I suppose you could >> say that we are imagining > that such brain surgery is even taking place. If >> so, then I know > where you are coming from. In my opinion, thoughts are as >> real as > anything else, even if the mechanism for self awareness is not >> known. > People do not remember or act when the electrical activity in >> their > brain is not there. > > Dave > Who is the original champion of "clever rhetoric"? The one who's work this > site eulogizes? Get my point? Exactly. Therefore, I am following on with what his rhetoric teaches. To confound the world we see as "only" an analogy, is exactly against what Pirsig is presenting. This is why he states that a written metaphysics is insufficient (degenerate is the term he uses). Just because something is written does not separate it from "the given". It is part and parcel of the given, and another aspect of it. This separation of sq and DQ that you present is overly rigorous, and leads us away from understanding Quality, in my humble opinion. The mechanic and the motorcycle become one reality. There is no subject/object divide there. His thoughts and the physical aspects of a motorcycle are one and the same thing. They only become separated through a philosophy of such. It is moving away from this schism that philosophy creates that ZAMM and Lila are attempting to encourage. IMHO. When Pirsig created a metaphysics out of Quality he took a great risk. Let us show that his risk was correctly chosen. Some questions for clarification: What is it that you hope tio achieve by claiming that an analogy is not a real thing in and of itself? Do we live in a fantasy world when we talk about things? Is such talk somehow meaningless? I ask this only to better understand what your ambition is with your view. What in terms of MoQ does it provide in terms of understanding? Thanks for the discussion on this. I am sure we can come to some agreement, and it is possible that our differences are trivial. An analogy is an analogy. It is only the concept of an analogy that is sq. Cheers, Mark > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
